WOUND BALLISTICS REVIEW - Thinline Weaponsthinlineweapons.com/IWBA/1995-Vol2No1.pdf · WOUND BALLISTICS REVIEW Association News JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL WOUND BALLISTICS ASSOCIATION

$20.00

International Wound Ballistics Association

WOUND BALLISTICS REVIEW

JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL WOUND BALLISTICS ASSOCIATION

Editorial: The ''Rhino" Bullet: Beware of Dragons and Dunces

- Alexander Jason

Survey and Evaluation of Variables in the Preparation of Ballistic Gelatin

- Sherrie M. Post & Torrey D. Johnson

Falling Bullets: Terminal Velocites and Penetration Studies

- Lucien C. Haag

The JFK Assassination: The F rangible or Plastic Bullet Theory Disproved

- John K. Lattimer, MD, Angus Laidlaw, Val Forgett, Eric Haubner

The Makarov Mixup: .380 Auto in the 9x18 Makarov

- Lucien C. Haag

Literature Review: Errors in The Journal of Trauma

-Martin L. Fackler, MD

VOLUME 2 1995 NUMBER 1

WOUND BALLISTICS REVIEW JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL WOUND BALLISTICS ASSOCIATION

VOLUME 2 1995 NUMBER !

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Instructions to Authors . . . ... ... . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . ..... . . .. . . . . . . 3

Association News . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

IWBA Correspondence . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 5

Editorial

The "Rhino" Bullet: Beware of Dragons and Dunces .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . 7

- Alexander Jason

Articles

Survey and Evaluation of Variables in the Preparation of Ballistic Gelatin.............. 9

- Sherrie M. Post & Torrey D. Johnson

Falling Bullets: Terminal Velocites and Penetration Studies . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . 21

- Lucien C. Haag

The JFK Assassination: The Frangible or Plastic Bullet Theory Disproved........... 27

- John K. Lattimer, MD, Angus Laidlaw, Val Forgett, Eric Haubner, RT

The Makarov Mixup: .380 Auto in the 9x18mm Makarov . . . . . .. . .. . .. . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 33

- Lucien C. Haag

Literature Review

Errors in The Journal of Trauma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .... . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . 40

-Martin L. Fackler, MD

1 Vol 2, No. 1


Test Results ........................................................................................................................ 48

Book Review

"Bullet Penetration"...................................................................................... 52

Martin L. Fackler, MD Surgeon & Consultant Gainesville, FL

Torrey D. Johnson Criminalist

Las Vegas, NV

Duncan MacPherson Consulting Engineer

El Segundo, CA

Board o f Directors

Lucien C. Haag Criminalist/Firearms Examiner

Carefree, AZ

Peter H. Kokalis Firearms Consultant

Phoenix, AZ

Eugene Wolberg Forensic Firearms Scientist

San Diego, CA

Alexander Jason Ballistics Consultant

Pinole, CA

Douglas Lindsey, MD, DrPH Professor of Surgery Emeritus

Tucson, AZ

The IWBA is an IRS 501 (c) (3) nonprofit scientific, educational, and public benefit California corporation. Contributions are tax-deductible; Tax ID# 94-3136817. The IWBA is comprised of

scientists, physicians, criminalists, law enforcement members, engineers, researchers, and others engaged or interested in the study of wound ballistics.

Editor-in -Chief: Martin L. Fackler

Managing Editor: Alexander Jason

Journal Design & Production: A. Jason

Subscription Information

U.S. individual and institutional subscriptions: $40 per year (or four issues). Canadian Subscriptions: $48 per year. Air mail foreign subscriptions: $58 per year.

Single copy sales: $20 plus $4 postage and handling for U.S. and $6 for foreign orders.

The WOUND BALLISTICS REVIEW' The Journal of the International Wound Ballistics Association (ISSN 1055-0305) is published by the IWBA, PO Box 70 1 , El Segundo, CA 90245

Telephone (310) 640-6065, ©Copyright 1 995, IWBA. All Rights Reserved.

Vol 2, No. 1 2


INSTRUCTIONS TO AUTHORS

The Wound Ballistics Review welcomes manuscripts, articles, short notes and letters to the editor that contribute to the science of wound ballistics. Publication preference will lean strongly toward pertinent papers with clear practical applications.

We invite cogent reviews of articles, books, news items, etc. Our goal is to commend good documentation as well as to point out

the errors in the wound ballistics literature. The Wound Ballistics Review especially requests our readers' help in submitting

short reviews which correct errors noted in the literature.

The review of all manuscripts reporting original work will be open; the names of reviewers will either appear with the

paper when published or will be made available upon request.

Articles are accepted only for exclusive publication in IWBA, and when published, the articles and illustrations become

the property ofiWBA. When an article is selected for publication, the author(s) will be required to sign a copyright transmittal

which also attests to the originality of the material submitted.

The experiment described in any paper must represent good scientific method. Complete methodology must be presented

so that the reader can duplicate the experiment exactly.

Work must be based on basic solid understanding of projectile-tissue interaction. Results must be reported completely to

permit meaningful comparison. In experimental animal wounds, for example, a clear and thorough quantitative description of the

observed damage must be included; i.e., was the bone fractured? Were major vessels disrupted? How big was the entrance? The

exit? What is the appearance of the projectile path (penetration depth, size and morphology of damage to organs, etc.)? This

information is mandatory to allow meaningful correlation of the wound reported to military as well as civilian wounds.

The entire paper must be expressed in language understandable to the layman.

SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS

1. If submitting a letter or review which refutes or points out errors in another work, please provide the address of the

source (please include a copy of the article reviewed--these will be returned if requested); IWBA will notify the editor of the

source, pending correction, inviting a rebuttal to be published with the review if one is submitted.

2. In submitting original work, the manuscript and one copy are requested ; one set of glossy illustrations is required; black

& white is preferred. Author's name must be clearly identified on the title page with address and telephone number. Manuscript must be double-spaced with ample margins (at least one inch on all sides) on standard (8 112" x 11") paper. NOTE: THE PRE

FERRED MANUSCRIPT FORM IS THE 3 112" (1.44 Meg or 720K) or 5 114" (1.2 Meg ) PC FLOPPY DISK WITH A PAPER

COPY. Most major PC word processors are acceptable but WordPerfect 5.0 or 5.1 is preferred. (Do not send data in Samna or

Ami Pro format: please convert to WordPerfect or ASCII format.) Macintosh floppies are also acceptable with text in ASCII

format. PLEASE DO NOT PROVIDE COMPUTER TEXT WITH SPECIAL FONTS OR LAYOUTS: PLAIN, SIMPLE TEXT

WITHOUT INDENTS, TABS, LINES OR GRAPHICS. Any graphs, tables, charts, etc should be supplied as separate files and/

or with a clean, high-quality paper copy.

3. References are to be numbered sequentially within the text and appear in the order cited at the conclusion of the article.

Examples:

Book : Black KE, Jederberg WW. Athymic nude mice and human skin grafting. Maibach HI, Lowe JN, eds. Models in Dermatology: vol l . Basel: S Karger, 1984;226-239.

Article in periodical: Fackler ML, Surinchak JS, Malinowski JA, et al. Bullet fragmentation: A major cause of tissue disruption. J Trauma 1984;24:263-266.

4. Legends for all illustrations should be listed in order, double-spaced.

5. An abstract of 150 words or less should preceed the text.

Vol 2, No. 1 3



Association News Membership Reorganization

The IWBA has been reorganized. It will be governed by a Board of Directors. I will remain as president and editor of the journal, but the organization will be run by a board of directors. They are : Lucien Haag, Alexander Jason, Torrey Johnson, Duncan MacPherson, Peter Kokalis, Douglas Lindsey, Eugene Walberg, and Martin Fackler.

The original IWBA membership structure was designed to give some recognition to those who have contributed to the body of knowledge in wound ballistics -- either by adding to the scholarship, or by disseminating that body of knowledge. Some felt that this "elitist" membership structure hampered our growth. We have, five years after our beginning, less than 500 members.

The purpose of the IWBA is advancing the scholarship of wound ballistics. As firearm illiteracy increases, I see an ever increasing need for this. Evaluation of the literature, separating the good from the bad, and getting this published in the IWBA journal twice a year on a predictable basis should be, in my view, our top priority (see the IWBA's statement of purpose).

We had a successful meeting in Sacramento in March, 1994. Some think we should have a meeting once a year. Looking at our present capacity to get things done I feel that one meeting every second year might be more attainable. In my view, we should have meetings only if we can accomplish them without sacrificing our first priority -- publishing a quality journal twice a year.

Those who felt that our membership structure hampered our growth suggested that we should have only one membership category. I solicited comments from our membership on this question: 25 letters of reply indicated a clear preference -- 22 for the single membership and only three for the original membership

4 1995

categories. I got nearly as many letters which indicated no clear preference but expressed unanimous strong support for the publication of a quality journal on a regular and predictable basis, a minimum of twice a year, being the first priority of the IWBA. Many expressed the opinion that "the IWBA should be known to a much wider audience than it is now" and some suggested advertising as a means of helping to increase our membership. That is another suggestion that we intend to adopt: it is clear that a concerted effort to increase our membership (at least tenfold for starters) is necessary of we are to accomplish our objective of increasing the knowledge of firearm effects in the scientific community as well as among the general populace.

The board of directors has voted to follow the wishes of the members : the new membership qualifications can be found on the last page of this issue.

Martin L. Fackler, IWBA President

IWBA Fellows Program A recent meeting of the IWBA Board of Directors

has voted to establish an IWBA Fellowship. This program will provide a certification process for IWBA members who meet certain criteria. Successful participants in the program will earn the title of "Fellow of theiWBA."

A Fellowship Committee has been established to determine the requirements and protocol for the program. Proposed criteria may include some or all of the following: publication of papers in the IWBA Journal, significant contribution to the science of wound ballisitcs, recommendation by colleagues, and a written examination on wound ballistic fundamentals. Please direct any comments on this program to Alexander Jason, Chairman of the Fellowship Committee at P.O. Box 375, Pinole, CA 94564

Vol 2, No. 1

WOUND BALLISTICS REVIEW Association News


IWBA Correspondence Editor:

The article by Gary Roberts, D.D.S. entitled "Comparison of the Terminal Performance of 9mm, .40 S&W, & .45 ACP JHP's"1 was generally quite good, but contained a few inconsistencies. On page 36, Dr. Roberts writes, "The Hornady 147gr #9028 "XTP" and the Corbon +P 147gr load which utilizes the Hornady 14 7 gr "XTP" bullet both had excessive penetration due to insufficient expansion." According to Table One on page 35, the average penetration in 10% gelatin exhibited by the test lots of these two loads was 15.2 inches (38 .6 em) and 1 5.7 inches (39.9 em) respectively. Since 1 8 inches (45.7 em) is currently considered the top end of desirable soft tissue penetration in humans and is indeed stated as such on page 33, the penetration results with the two test loads appear to be quite satisfactory. Curiously, the Hornady .45 ACP 230 gr. #9096 "XTP" load tested by the author exhibited an average penetration depth of 1 5.6 inches (39.5 em), but was listed by him on page 34 (and correctly so) as among the satisfactory performers in that caliber.

Even if one were to set the ceiling of acceptable missile penetration on the ideal maximum of 1 5 inches (38 .1 em), test results exceeding that figure by only .2 or .7 inches ( .5 or 1 .8 em) would still be acceptable, as they could just as likely be the result of slight batch-tobatch variations in penetration resistance inherent in the test medium as they could be the result of characteristics of the ammunition itself. Properly prepared ordnance gelatin is a test medium of proven accuracy, but its accuracy is certainly not of micrometer grade precision.

On page 36, Dr. Roberts writes that the approximate minimum level of acceptable expansion is .60 inches for the 9mm, .65 inches for the .40 S&W, and

Vol 2, No. 1 1995

.70 inches for the .45 ACP. On the contrary, given respective bullet weights of 14 7, 1 80, and 230 gr., impact velocities of 850 to 1000 fps, relatively flat frontal profiles on the mushroomed bullets, and virtual I 00% weight retention in all instances, these figures come closer to representing the maximum diameters that one could expect to obtain while still meeting the 12 inch (30.5 em) minimum tissue penetration standard. A good case in point is the Winchester 14 7 grain 9mm Subsonic JHP load which has proven itself in both the laboratory and in the field to be a most satisfactory performer for use against human adversaries. In a study of 27 actual human shootings with this load conducted by Eugene J. Wolberg, Senior Firearms Criminalist for the San Diego Police Crime Laboratory, the average penetration depth was 1 3 inches with no projectile expanding to a diameter of more than .584 inches.2

In order to penetrate at least 12 inches of soft tissue, a bullet weighing 14 7 grains with an expanded diameter significantly greater than .60 inches would have to possess either a more aerodynamic frontal profile than a blunt mushroom shape, or a stellate pattern that would decrease the cross sectional area of the mushroom head via spaces between the extended radial projections. In the former case the bullet's ability to crush tissue relative to its diameter would be compromised, while in the latter case the concomitant decrease in cross sectional area would permit the bullet to penetrate as deeply as a non-stellate expanded bullet of smaller diameter, but with a higher likelihood of disrupting blood vessels and other anatomical structures that the smaller diameter bullet may miss.

Sincerely, Gus Cotey, Jr. Voorhees, NJ

REFERENCES:

1 . Roberts GK, Comparison of the terminal performance of 9mm, .40

S&W, & .45 ACP JHP's. Wound Ballistics Review, Vol. I, No. 4: 32-37

2. Wolberg EJ, Performance of the Winchester 9mm 147 grain subsonic

jacketed hollow point bullet in human tissue and tissue simulant. Wound

Ballistics Review, Vol. I, No.I: 10-13

5

r

Correspondence WOUND BALLISTICS REVIEW


Comment:

I wish to thank Gus Cotey for his perceptive comments.

It is my job as editor to pick up the inconsistencies that he

pointed out -- but I missed them.

Honest scientists are grateful to those who point out

their mistakes and oversights. They can then make the nec

essary corrections and the body of knowledge improves -that is the way science is meant to work. Our readership is

the most knowledgeable in the world regarding the subject

of wound ballistics and we invite and value their comments

pointing out any oversights that we publish. Letters pointing

out errors have our highest priority for publication.

The last paragraph in Gus's letter reveals his excellent

understanding of what is going on as a bullet penetrates tis

sue. His comment "Properly prepared ordnance gelatin is a

test medium of proven accuracy, but its accuracy is cer

tainly not of micrometer grade precision" also needs to be

stressed. I tabulated the penetration depths of the last 200

BB calibration shots we did in 10% ordnance gelatin (shot

at 4 degrees C) at the wound ballistics laboratory at the Let

terman Army Institute of Research: the average came out to

be 8.6 ± 0.4 em. This demonstrated that the penetration

depths we measured in our gelatin were generally accurate

only within about± 5%. This verifies Gus's comment and

points out the problem with scientific validity one runs into

when using any sharp cutoff penetration depth to evaluate

bullets: it implies more precision than we can obtain from

ordnance gelatin -- or any other tissue simulant. Duncan

MacPherson discusses this problem in his book Bullet Pen

etration - Modeling the Dynamics and Incapacitation

Resulting from Wound Trauma which is reviewed in this

issue.

--MLF

Editor: Thanks for the wisdom from the 1 893 Scientific

American, (see the Fragments" section of issue No.4 of the WBJ- Ed.) I had to read this puzzler a few times to get the writer's point. He must have been a mathematician, because his method is true without being useful, It's true that time of flight determines total drop, So, if you measure the drop to a given range, you can tell the average velocity over that distance. This leaves you somewhat in the dark about muzzle velocity, but before cheap chronographs, shooters would settle for a good deal less

6

precision. And so would the government- most of the firing tables for .45-70 were determined by graphic and surveying methods, not by downrange chronographs,

The hope of the writer that this can be done with only two shots is pretty utopian- he seems to rely on some wonderfully precise machine rest that permits the gun being inverted without sighting problems, and on perfect ammunition, We are still waiting for this gear a hundred years later.

In practice, graphic determination of trajectory needed lots of experimental firing. Even so, some pretty smart folks made some pretty serious mistakes. The extreme range of .30- '06 ammo was thought to be 4700 yards until WWI, when somebody discovered by longrange machine gun shooting that the slug never got past 3400 yards. This bothered the experts more than somewhat. Things are more scientific now.

First, you have to shoot really significant groups mathematically- twenty or twenty-five rounds. When you have determined your group center geometrically, you sandbag the rifle so the sights are pointed at your aiming point. The bore- line will point somewhat above the group center. You look through the bore directly, if you have a bolt-action or a falling block, or with a reflector bore-scope, if you're working with something that has an obstruction at the rear of the receiver. You send an assistant down to the target with a marking disc and direct him until you can see his disc through the bore. He then marks the target through the hole in the disc's center. If you want to eliminate some human error, you can peer through the bore with a surveyor's transit, If not, you can just let your helper repeat the process until you have a number of marks, then find their geometric center.

The difference in height between bore-sight center and group center is the drop over that range, giving you the time of flight and the average velocity to that distance. If you repeat the process at many ranges, it takes only patience and a little math to figure out what your load will do out to 1 1 00 yards or so. The published tables for the ,45-70-405 US Govt load end just here, because the groups got so big that wind and iron-sight error made the true drop something of a mystery.

Yeah, it works, But not like a mathematician wants it to.

1995

Leon Day, Oakland, CA

Vol 2 , No. 1

WOUND BALLISTICS REVIEW Editorial


The ''Rhino Bullet:''

Beware of Dragons &· Dunces Alexander Jason

In December of 1994, a small article appeared in Newsweek magazine titled "Killer Bullet:" which featured the new "Rhino-Ammo." This article quoted the manufacturer's claim that, "Upon contact with human flesh, the polymer ablation rate is exceeded, which

while we carry out our mission." Politicians at the federal and state levels were quick to move on this new threat. A U.S. Senator, and a Congressman announced that they would propos� legislation to ban such ammunition. California Assemblyman John Burton

causes violent fracturing of the projectile into thousands of sharp, razor like fragments. Each of these fragments become lethal shrapnel and are hurled into vital organs, lungs, circulatory-system components, the heart and other tissue. The wound channel is catastrophic."

This Newsweek article initiated several weeks of hysterical reporting by the print and television news media which warned that a "deadly new form" of "flesh-tearing" bullets would soon be on the market. The "inventor" of the Rhino-Ammo was featured on many news broadcasts and national newspapers making such comments as, "The beauty of it is it makes an incredible wound. There is no way to stop the bleeding. I don't care where it hits. They're going down for good." He also announced his intention to market an "armor piercing" bullet (the "Black-Rhino") which he said would go through any vest.

Several law enforcement officials declared their opposition to the deadly new ammo. The Chief of the Wash-

C:UNS

Killer Bullet

UPON CONTACT WITH HUMAN flesh, the polymer ablation rate is exceeded, which causes violent fracturing of the projectile into thousands of sharp, razorlike fragments. Each of these fragments become lethal shrapnel and are hurled into vital organs, lungs, circulatory-system components, the heart and other tissues. The wound channel is catastrophic." Or so says the packaging of Rhino-Ammo, a new brand of bullet that's about to hit Amer� ica's streets, along with $4 per round Black Rhi-nos, which penetrate bulletproof vests. Worse, says a federal narcotics agent, "they'll be used against the good guys." Similar "cop killer" bullets were banned in 1986-Will Rhinos be next?

introduced legislation to outlaw the manufacture, possession, or sale of Rhino bullets. "It boggles the mind," he said, "that some company would try to figure out another way to kill people." Even the American Medical Association joined in by warning that "a surgeon removing Rhino-Ammo from a victim is in danger from its razor-like fragments."'

The most interesting fact is that no one had ever been shot by a Rhino bullet; nor had the news media any data whatever concerning how the Rhino bullet would actually perform. The truth is that these bullets had not yet been manufactured or marketed. The news media, the politicians, and the law enforcement officials were only reacting to the absurd marketing claims of the Rhino bullet "inventor."

During these few weeks of intense interest in this new threat to civilization, I was contacted by several members of the news media who, as usual, didn't really want to learn anything but instead wanted to quote me saying something that would fit

ington, DC police department stated, "Congress needs to quickly act to ban these rounds." The director of the National Association of Police Organizations agreed fearing, " . . . a bullet like that to be used against us

nicely into their story about this "horrible" ammunition. By this time I had learned enough about the RhinoAmmo to know that it was just another high-speed, frangible bullet filled with small lead shot in an carbon

Vol 2 , N o . 1 1995 7



polymer matrix. When I explained to the reporters that there was nothing really new about the Rhino-Ammo, that it would likely produce only shallow injuries (this was confirmed later in actual tests) and that it would certainly not cause "instantaneous death no matter where it hit." I received rather hostile reactions. One reporter who had previously interviewed the RhinoBullet inventor, indignantly asked me "How can you say that? Have you ever seen someone shot with a Rhino bullet?" I replied, "No, but have you? Has anyone?" She, quite disgusted asked, "Well, are you a doctor?" "No," I said, "but neither is the guy who's trying to sell his Rhino bullets." I thought it strange that she seemed far more skeptical towards my comments than those of the Rhino bullet "inventor" and marketer.

On a computer journalism forum, I posted the following

8

In spite of the wild claims made, there is

nothing significantly new or ominous about

the "Rhino" brand ammunition. There are

several other nearly identical bullets which

have been marketed for many years. We have

tested many such frangible projectiles in tis

sue simulant and we have data from

numerous actual shooting incidents and the

truth is that the "deadly" Rhino bullet con

figuration is actually less effective in human

wounding and incapacitation than the stan

dard solid or deforming (hollow-point) bullets

available for the past twenty five years.

In the sub-world of ammunition and gun

collectors, manufacturers, marketers, and in

ventors, there are dozens of new products

launched each year all of which feature fan

tastic (and usually inaccurate) claims of

superior performance. The most enthusiastic

and fanciful of all are the numerous crackpot

bullet inventors who appear frequently with a

"totally new," "super-deadly, killer-diller,"

"magic" bullet design. These people are a

running joke within the law-enforcement and

mainstream ammunition manufacturing com

munities.

What is most interesting is the profound

1995

ignorance and gullibility of the news media in

this matter. Should the marketing claims of a

single person for a product which is not even

in production or available for sale or even in

dependently tested be considered news?

The first replies I received were complaints from people who accused me of trying to "justify" the manufacture and sale of Rhino ammo and who said that they were going to demand that a law would be enacted to ban this terrible ammunition! I sent this response:

I am not trying to "justify" this nonsense. I

do not care whether or not the Rhino ammu

nition is banned or not banned. The point I

was trying to make was a technical one: that

the product does not represent some new

high-tech threat to humanity. This proposed

product is actually less effective than the am

munition used by cowboys and Indians over

100 years ago.

But I suppose someday when someone

sends out a press release threatening to mar

ket giant fire-breathing dragons, the news

media will accept it as scientific fact, sound

the worldwide media alarm, and there will be

people who will immediately write to congress

demanding a law banning the sale or posses

sion of giant, fire-breathing dragons.

Isn't it interesting that among the thousands of press releases distributed each day to the news media to promote a new product, service, or cause; it was only the Rhino bullet which the news media found both newsworthy and completely credible? It has been yet another experience which reminds me that there is something about the field of wound ballistics that often makes even simple truths difficult to convey.

1. Report of Deadly New Bullets Raise Outcry; Washington Post;28 Dec 1994;A06

Update: Due to a trademark conflict, "Rhino Ammo"

has changed its brand name to "Razor Ammo" and is

now being marketed through retail stores for $24 per

six rounds.

Vol 2 , No. 1



A SURVEY AND EVA.LUATION OF

VARIABLES IN THE PREPARTION

OF BALLISTIC GELATIN Sherrie M. Post & Torrey D. Johnson

A survey of a number of individuals and agencies

who are using ballistic gelatin as a tissue simulant

was conducted to determine what variations in for

mulae and/or techniques of preparation exist. The

variables reported are isolated and the penetration

of the individual blocks compared to standard

gelatin blocks using the BB method of calibration.

Ballistic or ordnance gelatin, first used by Theodor Kocher in 1 895 1 is being widely used by professionals today as the standard ballistic test medium. Ballistic gelatin is a powdered protein mixture derived from the bones, skins, and other tis-

porary cavities can be measured, and the gelatin closely matches the density and elastic properties of animal tissue.3 Also, since gelatin is transparent, the wounding process can be captured by high-speed film and observed in detail.

There is no medium yet available that can duplicate the many variables involved with real tissue and real bodies. However, of all the present test media, ballistic gelatin used as a tissue "simulant" can most accurately and consistently reproduce the projectile penetration depth, deformation, and fragmentation observed in living animal tissue.2•3.4 Ballistic gelatin has provided a means of evaluating bullet performance, predicting

wound types, and teaching sue of livestock. The powder is mixed by weight with water and allowed to gel forming a tough, rubbery, transparent substance. When properly formulated, ballistic gelatin closely mimics the behavior of animal muscle tissue when struck by small arms projectiles.2

Ballistic gelatin can most

accurately and consistently

reproduce the projectile

penetration depth,

deformation, and

fragmentation observed in

living animal tissue.

medical personnel how to treat projectile wounds. Ballistic gelatin is also being used in crime laboratories to reconstruct shooting evidence in order to assist in the determination of bullet type and distance of shooting.

When a bullet strikes the soft tissue of a living body a permanent cavity is created consisting of the tissue crushed or destroyed by the bullet's passage. A few milliseconds later a temporary cavity is formed by the stretch of tissue flung from the path of the bullet. This cavity subsequently collapses but tissue and organs in its path can be damaged. Ballistic gelatin is the only medium reported from which both permanent and tern-

Vol 2, No. 1 1995

ISSUES IN BALLISTIC GELATIN PREPARATION AND USE

Although ballistic gelatin was increasingly being used as a test medium, problems arose due to ambiguity or a lack of information in the literature with regard to gelatin formulation, size and temperature of the gelatin blocks, and testing conditions. Due to the considerable variation that existed it was difficult to compare the re-

9



Figure 1 BB penetration in 10% gelatin at 4 degrees C

14

12 P=.022VI-1.36

10 ...... E � 8 . c: .Q � Q; 6 c: &

4

2

0 ,

0 100 200 300 400 velocity (f/s)

suits of one experimenter to another's . One also lacked a method of assessing performance between individual gelatin batches.

Traditionally it was common practice to use a gelatin concentration of 20% (w/w), and to dissolve the gelatin granules in hot water.3•5 More recently the researchers at the Letterman Army Institute of Research (LAIR) have settled on a 10% (w/w) gelatin formulation at 4 degrees C which is made without heating the mixture above 40 degrees C (1 04 degrees F). Prolonged excess heat has harmful effects on gelatin strength and viscosity and the manufacturer's instructions recommend adding the powdered gelatin to cold water.4•6•7 The LAIR group argues that the 1 0% formulation, stored and shot at 4 degrees C reproduces the projectile penetration, deformation, and fragmentation depth measured in living animal tissue. The LAIR group used adult human-sized swine (approximately 200 lbs) to establish the equivalence between the tissue simulant and living animal tissue. 3•4 Dr. Martin L.Fackler, the former Director of the LAIR Wound Ballistics Laboratory has also compared the gelatin performance to observations made during his work as a surgeon in Vietnam, and he continues to compare the gelatin results to autopsy results with others in the field. 5•8•9

In order to ensure consistency between batches of

10 1995

P=.020VI·1. 77

• Post-dotted

o Haag-solid ( 1 0)

• Morris-dashed (as In 10)

500 600 700

gelatin and as a means of comparing performance, Dr. Fackler began calibrating all of his blocks before conducting any ballistic testing. Dr. Fackler uses an airgun to shoot a BB at a specified velocity into the gelatin block. The depth of penetration of the BB becomes a reproducible measure of the physical properties of that particular gelatin block. Steel spheres are ideal for this purpose because they have a uniform shape, will not yaw, expand, deform, or fragment in the gelatin, and a plot of their penetration versus velocity will produce a simple straight line (Figure 1 ). This BB calibration method is now in widespread use as it allows correlation of data from different experiment- ters. 6•10 The BB calibration penetration depth of 8.5 em (at 590 f/s) corresponds to the same penetration depth in muscle tissue. 7•8•9

Sherrie Post was a student intern from the University

of California, Davis during the project and is now at

tending graduate school at the University of

California at Berkeley. Torrey Johnson is a Criminal

ist with the Las Vegas, NV Metropolitan Police

Department Crime Lab.

Vol 2, No. 1



INVESTIGATION OF BALLISTIC GELATIN

PREPARATION VARIABLES

While most researchers in the field have now adopted the procedure described by Fackler and Malinowski 8•6

as a standard in gelatin preparation (appendix A), some variation does still exist. We surveyed a number of individuals and agencies who are using ballistic gelatin as a test medium on the details of their gelatin formulation, preparation, and use (appendix B). We then prepared gelatin blocks, incorporating these variations, and compared them against gelatin blocks prepared by the Fackler and Malinowski procedure. Using the BB method of calibration we were able to study how the physical properties of the gelatin may be changed by these variations in formulation and procedure. Some of the variations reported by respondents to the survey and evaluated include: the addition of a preservative or anti-foam agent, the temperature of the water added to the gelatin powder, the maximum heating temperature, the use of hydration and length of time, the storage time, and the use of remelted gelatin.

The calibration penetration in gelatin has always varied among users; the purpose of this study is to investigate the extent to which this variation is a result of poor control of preparation variables. This study did not show any one clear factor which would account for this variation. In fact, the average penetration obtained in this study was 11.3 em even when good practice was followed in preparation, and the variations in this study are shown relative to this average value. The study results show that any consistent average penetration can easily be adjusted to the baseline 8.5 em by a slight change in the gelatin concentration.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Kind and Knox Type 250 A ordnance gelatin mixed with water, and heated, was poured into half-gallon milk cartons, 9.5cm x 9.5cm x 1 9.5cm (3.7" x'3.7" x 7.7") to form blocks of 10% concentration, stored and shot at 4 degrees C, using the methods described by Fackler and Malinowski as standards. A number of other gelatin blocks were prepared with various formulation changes that are known to be used in the field. These blocks were assigned batch labels which corre-

Vol 2, No. 1 1995

lated to the formula variations. At the time of shooting, starting and end times were

recorded, as well as the temperature of the block at start and finish. Temperature was measured using a digital thermometer placed in the center of the block, the end of which was about 5 em from the surface (approx. 2 inches). The blocks of gelatin were calibrated using a Crossman "Pumpmaster 760" air rifle to fire a series of .177" BB's (0.34 grams) into each block. Velocities were measured using an Oehler Chronotach (Model 31 ), and an Oehler skyscreen chronograph (Model 51) with screens placed exactly 5 feet apart, beginning 5 feet from the muzzle. Penetration depth was measured in centimeters from the point of entry to the front surface of the BB along the projectile path. At a velocity of 600 +/- 15 f/s standard penetration was 11.3 +/- 0.5 em. Each trial run corresponds to approximately six shots fired from which the average velocities and penetrations were reported.

Our standard blocks of 10% concentration were made with cold tap water (23°C), allowed to hydrate in the refrigerator for one hour, were heated to a maximum temperature of 40°C and were shot at 48 hours after preparation. The addition of propionic acid to our standards was optional. The average penetration depths from the standards were then compared against the gelatin blocks prepared with various formulation changes, and/or shot under different test conditions than the standards.

SURVEY AND

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS

BEGINNING WATER TEMPERATURE

Dr. M. Fackler: Cold tap water, temperature not measured.

Experimenters 3,8: Cold water, temperature not reported.

Experimenters 1,6,9: Cold water, approximately 45-600F (7-16°C).

Experimenters 2,5,9: Cold tap water, approximately 75-77°F (23-25°C).

1 1

Gelatin Evaluation WOUND BALLISTICS REVIEW


Figure 4 BB penetration vs beginning water temperature

12

1 1.6 0

11.6

1 1.4 0 1 trial

e (.) 11.2 ..... 1 trial • low c

7 trials-standard

0 1 1 � � 10.6

o avg

• high

10.6

10.4

10.2

10

0 10 20 30 temperature (degrees C)

40 50 60

Experimenters 4,7: Hot tap water, approximately 130-1500F (54-66°C).

The directions furnished by the Kind and Knox Division of Knox Gelatine recommend starting with cold water 45-50°F (7-10°C).96 Our cold tap water is approximately 23°C

(73°F). We tested gelatin blocks made with water directly from the tap, blocks made from water chilled to 10°C (50°F), and one made with hot water, 60°C (140°F). See Figure 4.

Results: We found that at all three beginning water temperatures tested, our data fell within+/- 0.5 em of the 11.3 em average penetration in this study.

HYDRATION OF GELATIN PARTICLES

Dr. M. Fackler: Gelatin powder+ water mixture left to sit in refrigerator for 2 hours before heating.

Experimenters 3,6: Mixture is hydrated in refrigerator for 2 hours.

Experimenter 1: Hydration time of at least 2 hours (covered to prevent moisture loss) in a cool room approximately 60-65°F.

12 1995

Experimenter 9: Hydration time of 1 hour at room temperature.

Experimenters 2,4,7,8: Hydration time of 2-4 hours at room temperature.

Experimenter 5: Hydration time of 15 minutes (mildly stirred at room temperature) .

Although the Fackler and Malinowski procedure recommends refrigerating the gelatin mixture for 2 hours to hydrate all of the particles 6• we refrigerated our mixture (enough for 1 milk carton) for about 1 hour since we were making much smaller blocks (Dr. Fackler's blocks are 25x25x50 cm) . 10•3 We tested a block which hydrated in the refrigerator for two hours, one which hydrated at room temperature, and one which was allowed no hydration time before heating. See Figure 5 .

Results: We found that the difference between hydrating our mixture for one or two hours was minimal, and that the temperature at which the gelatin is allowed to hydrate was not critical. Even a batch which was allowed no hydration time passed our calibration criteria, although penetration may be slightly higher than those

Vol 2, No. 1



Figure 5 BB penetration vs hydration variables

12

1 1.6

1 1.6

0 1 1.4 0

e 1 1.2 ,g 0

1 trial 1 trial

c .2 11 2 Gi � 10.6 •

7 trials-standard

1 trial • low

o average

10.6 • high

10.4

10.2

10 refrlg. 1 hour refrig. 2 hours

hydration of gelatin particles

room temp. 1 hour none

which did hydrate. With larger batches this penetration difference can be even more exaggerated. One experimenter reported having consistently higher BB penetrations when the mixture was not allowed to hydrate, and therefore was less dense. 11

HEATING GELATIN MIXTURE

Dr. M. Fackler: The gelatin mixture is heated slowly in a double boiler and stirred gently until all of the gelatin is in solution. NEVER HEATED OVER 104°F (40°C).

Experimenters 1,2,3,5,6,8,9: Gelatin mixture is heated slowly to a maximum temperature of 1 04°F.

Experimenters 4,7: No heating time is necessary, start with hot water.

As standards we tested blocks heated to a maximum temperature of 40°C (1 04°F), and compared them to blocks heated to 50°C (122°F), 60°C (140°F), and 75°C (167°F). See Figure 6.

Results: The disruption of gelatin molecules by heat is a function of the degree of heat applied and the length of time the heat is applied11•6 Our blocks were kept at temperature a maximum of ten minutes. We

Vol 2, No. 1 1995

found that if we exceeded 40°C for a short period of time our blocks still passed our calibration test (up to 60°C). At 75°C we just exceeded the upper limits of our calibration criteria. Dr. Fackler uses 40°C as his maximum temperature in order to have a measure of security and margin of error.6

STORAGE TIME

Dr. M. Fackler: After removal from molds the gelatin is stored in refrigerator 39°F (4°C) for at least 36 hours from the time the gelatin was poured. Storage time is usually 48 hours.

Experimenter 6: Storage time of 24-48 hours at 4°C. Experimenters 2,3: Storage time of at least 36 hours

at 4°C. Experimenters 5,8: Storage time of at least 48 hours

at 4°C. Experimenters 4, 7,9: Stored at 4°C for up to 7-10

days. Our standard blocks were stored in their milk car

ton molds for 48 hours at 4°C. One block was shot at 24 hours, then again at 48 hours storage time. Others were shot at 48 hours, stored, then shot again at 1

13



week, 2 weeks, 3 weeks, up to 3 months from the time the block was made (with preservative). See Figure 7.

Results: We found that when our blocks were shot at 48 hours, stored, and shot again in 1 -3 months the resistance to penetration had increased. Perhaps the gelatin blocks became denser with time due to water loss. We found that if we shot our blocks at I weeks

time they may pass our standard range at the very lower limits, but by 2-3 weeks time the penetrations had dropped below our acceptable range. In the instance where a block was shot at 24 hours after preparation, and then again at 48 hours after preparation, the penetration decreased 0.77 em.

Figure 6 BB penetration vs heating temperature

1 2 1 1 .8 . a

• 1 1 .6 1 1 .4 D

e g 1 1 .2 • low 8 1 1 a avg 1 • • c 10.8 • high � 7 trials-standard 1 trial 2 trials 1 trial 1 0.6 -

10.4 10.2 10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

temperature (degrees C)

Figure 7 BB penetraHon vs storage time

12 � • 1 1 1 .5 •

D 2 remelted block � X 1 1 • • 3

� 1 0.5 • �-i!l 0 4 • 24 hrs c • 0 b. 0 • 5 � 10 ll. 6 "& 48 hrs X c 9.5 1 3 • � 2 • 7 1 .5 2 D

9 weeks • 0 6 2.5 X 9 6.5 3 months lK 10 8 0 0.5 1 1 .5 2 2.5 3 3.5

time (log (hours))

14 1995 Vol 2 , N o . 1



Figure 8 BB penetration vs additives

1 2 4 trials 1 1 .8 • 3 trials 1 1 .6 1 1 .4 J

e 2 trials g 1 1 .2 • low c 0 1 1 a avg � Propionic acid 1 10.6

None • high

1 0.6 10.4 Cinnamon Oil 10.2 10

additives

ADDITIVES

Dr. M. Fackler: Adds 5 ml of propionic acid per liter to retard mold. This is usually added when gelatin is heated to put it entirely into solution.

Experimenters 2,5,7: 5 ml propionic acid/ L. Experimenter 1: Several drops of benzalkonium chlo

ride concentrate, an antibacterial agent, per 3.5 L. Experimenters 4,7,9: Approximately 2 drops of cinna

mon /2 gallons to retard foaming. Experimenters 3,6,8: None added.

Our standard blocks were made with an optional addition of propionic acid preservative, as per Fackler. We also tested blocks made with cinnamon oil, and blocks made without additives. See Figure 8. Without preservative our blocks lasted only a few weeks in the refrigerator before becoming soft, growing mold, and eventually turning black.

Results : We found that whether additives were used, or not, there was no significant difference in the results attained. Our block tested with cinnamon oil yielded a lower penetration, but of course more blocks need to be tested in order to determine a range.

Other variables tested included:

Vol 2, No. 1 1995

SHOOTING TEMPERATURE:

When measured with thermocouples our size gelatin block was found to increase an average of 1 degree F every 1 0 minutes at an ambient temperature of 73°F (23°C) (Figure 3.) Because of this fairly rapid temperature increase we took our blocks out of the refrigerator slightly colder than 4°C, and used the average of our starting and end temperatures . Of course, the bigger the block, the slower the rate of temperature change. We did no experiments with insulating the gelatin in order to slow the rate of temperature change. We tested gelatin behavior shot at 1 6°C ( 6 1 °F), and 2 1 ac (70°F), and compared it to the standard 4°C. See Figure 9.

Results: We found that as our gelatin block temperature came to equilibrium with ambient temperature, there was an approximate 7o difference between the surface of the gelatin, and the center. Since penetration increases with gelatin temperature, one should take several temperature readings while shooting, and shoot the gelatin block as quickly as possible once it has been removed from the refrigerator.

Gelatin concentration: We shot blocks of 12% (w/ w), 1 5% (w/w), and 20% (w/w), and compared their penetrations to the standard 1 0% (w/w). See Figure 1 0.

15

16

Figure 3

55

50



Temperature increase measured with thermocouples

1 /4 • from surface ---

1' from end -o--

2' from end and side -•-

3 · from end. 2' from side �

30 +---r--+----r---+----r--_,----�--4----+---4----+---4----+----r-�

E'

0

20 19 18 17

� 16 c 8 15 ,g � 14 & 13

12 1 1

10 20 30

Figure 9

40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1 10 120 130 140

time (min)

88 penetration vs shooting temperature

D

0

10 +-----------�-------------r------------+-----------��----------� 0 5 10 15 20 25

gelatin temperature (degrees C)

1995 Vol 2 ,

1 50

• low

o ovg

• high

No. 1



Results: Our BB penetration depth dropped approximately 69% as our gelatin concentration increased from 1 0%-20%. Dr. Fackler's data shows a penetration decrease of approximately 48%.8 Dr. Fackler uses a calibration criteria of 8.5 +/- 1.0 em at a velocity of 590 +/- 15 fps with standard 1 0% blocks. Although we were not able to isolate one variable which accounted for our consistently higher penetration we found that by making a 12% concentration our penetration fell within the 8.5 +/- 1 .0 em range which most closely approximates animal tissue.

Remelted gelatin block: Dr. Fackler reuses his

fit our calibration criteria. We did not test blocks remelted immediately following use. If remelting after storing, one may wish to use the remelted gelatin block only as a safety behind another fresh block. (Figure 7)

Mechanical damage to gelatin block: We tested a block which was subjected to physical "shock" by being dropped from a height of 3 feet, as may occur when trying to remove the block from its mold.

Results: We found no significant difference in penetrations (0.22 em) in the block which was shot before and after being dropped several times.

Frozen gelatin block: We shot a block at 4°C,

Figure 1 0 88 penetration vs gelatin concentration

1 2

7 trials-standard 10

1 trial 0

E' 8 � c • low .Q 6 2 Gi

1 trial 0 o overage c Gl a. 4

• high

1 trlol 0 2

0 +----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+--� 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 1 2% 14% 16% 18%

concentration (w /w)

gelatin two times by melting it down very slowly and rechilling it. We found that approximately half of the experimenters surveyed were remelting their gelatin blocks as well. We tested a gelatin block which was remelted three times with a weeks storage time between each remelt.

Results: One experimenter reported having difficulty meeting their calibration test unless the blocks were remelted immediately after use. Our remelted block was within the standard range when shot 48 hours after being poured. When remelted and shot after being stored the penetration decreased, and it no longer

Vol 2, No. 1 1995

froze it for several days, thawed it to 4°C, and reshot it to compare the penetrations.

Results: After being frozen, our penetration depth dropped almost 0.5 em. We cannot say if this is significant or not, but one should avoid using a gelatin block that has been accidentally frozen.

Pellet versus BB performance in gelatin: We shot flat nose pellets (. 1 77") at 200-600 f/s to see if they behaved differently than the BB 's did in our standard gelatin blocks.

Results: Pellets, like steel spheres, will give a straight line when graphing their penetration versus ve-

17



Figure 2 88 and pellet penetration in 1 0% gelatin at 4 degrees C

14

12

10 e � 8 c: 0 � G) 6 c: �

4 P=.022 Vi - 1 .36

2 ,.,.

0 " 0 100 200 300 400

velocity (f/s)

locity (up to 1000 f/s). See Figure 2 .

CONCLUSION

While it seems that most experimenters surveyed reported using the same basic formula and procedure to make their ballistic gelatin blocks, some modifications have been made between individuals in order to adapt to their own equipment and circumstances. In carrying out this experiment we tried to test as many variables as possible in order to determine how these variations would affect the gelatin performance. We made approximately 25 blocks of gelatin, and ran about 60 trials. This corresponds to over 350 BB gun shots being fired, and their penetrations measured.

In looking at the results from our data it seems that most of the modifications reported did not have a significant effect on BB penetration. Those variables with the most obvious effects are storage time, shooting temperature, and gelatin concentration.

One question which was raised was whether or not an already penetrated gelatin block should be used again as a target. The FBI cautions against the reuse of a gelatin block as the trauma from the first round's im-

18 1995

• BB

o pellet

500 600 700

pact may affect the consistency of the gelatin and affect the measurement of penetration from later rounds fired into it. 12 However, due to practicality, those we questioned were firing multiple shots into the same block of gelatin. Is this affecting the gelatin's performance? If one can use our results from a block of gelatin which was shot before and after suffering from "mechanical damage" it would seem safe to say that the gelatin's performance has not been significantly altered. Dr. Fackler, Dr. Gary Roberts, and others have reported attaining consistent bullet penetration depths when the shots are placed close to one another in a single gelatin block. 11 •13 However, one should avoid temporary cavity overlap, and shooting into cleavage lines or bullet penetrations may be affected.

In order for ammunition test results to be of any value, BB calibration and reporting is critical when ballistic gelatin is used as a test medium. BB shots should be done before and after the ammunition testing, and the temperature recorded before and after the shooting. Velocities, and penetrations of the calibrations should be reported, and sufficient detail of the methods, as well as shooting conditions should be provided in order to allow others to reproduce the experiment and compare data.

Vol 2 , N o . 1



An example of inadequate information is a report of data collected at a demonstration of body armor and ammunition testing in 1993, and presented by The Specialist. As a test medium they used 250 Type A Ordnance Gelatin of 10% concentration made into blocks 5 " x 7 1/4" x 4 3/4". Unfortunately that is the extent of the details provided. Some questions may arise when other experimenters want to compare their own data to these results : How was this gelatin prepared? No information is given about the procedure or formula used in making up their gelatin blocks. What temperature was their gelatin shot at? Obviously shooting temperature is a critical variable and has a significant effect on bullet penetration, but this detail is not included. In the pictures they include with the report we see that the gelatin is being shot outdoors in the sunlight. How much time has elapsed between removing their gelatin from the refrigerator, and shooting? Was any attempt made to insulate their gelatin blocks to slow the temperature increase? Was the block temperature taken during the shooting to insure consistency? Were the gelatin blocks calibrated with BB' s? No mention is made of this, or if they were calibrated, no supporting data of BB velocities, and/or penetrations is provided.

If we can assume that BB penetration differences correlate directly to bullet penetration differences the reporting of calibration data may explain some of the anomalies seen in the literature today.

APPEN DIX A

GENERAL PROCEDURES FOR RECONSTITUTING GELATIN

1 . Always start with cold water 45-50°F (7 -1 0°C). 2. Always add the powdered gelatin to the water. Never pour water into gelatin . 1 000 GM G E LATI N ,

9000 ML WATER (This g ives a 1 0% solution). 3. Agitate (by sti rring) a bare m inimum just to wet al l particles (avoid violent agitation to prevent entrain

ment of large quantities of air). 4. Let stand in refrigerator for 2 hours to hydrate all gelatin particles. 5. Heat the container in a hot water bath or double cooker, and again sti r gently unti l all gelatin is in solu

tion and evenly dispersed throughout the container. DO NOT H EAT OVE R 1 04°F (40°C) ! Do not sti r rapidly, to prevent entrainment (entrapment) of air.

6. Pour into molds, set in refrigerator or cold water bath 45-50°F (7-1 0°C) until firmly set. (Overnight for best results) .

7. After removal from molds, store in refrigerator at 39°F (4°C} in airtight plastic bags. Do not use blocks u ntil at least 36 hours have elapsed from the time gelatin was poured into molds.

GENERAL NOTES 1 . Gelatin is insoluble in cold water. 2. Final concentration will depend on desired firmness of block. 3. Fi rmness of block wi l l increase with time in cold water bath , up to 24-30 hours. 4. Blocks may be reused simply by heating to melting temperature then rechi l l ing as in original proce

d u re. 5. Add 5 ml p ropionic acid per liter to inh ibit mold (optional). 6. Gelatin firmness varies g reatly (inversely) with temperature of the block. Gelatin temperature must be

constant throughout each block and there must be no temperature variation between blocks. Dr. Fackler shot his gelatin blocks, 25 x 25 x 50 em, within 30 minutes of removal from the refrigerator. The temperature was measured 2 em from the block surface; it took 90 minutes to rise 1 oc in Dr. Facklers's shooting range which was kept at about 68°F (20°C).

Vol 2 , N o . 1 1995 19



APPEN DIX B SURVEY:

Questions on general method of preparation of bal l istic gelatin. 1 . Is the dry gelatin added to cold water or hot water? What temperatu re is the water? Is gelatin added to

water, or water to gelatin? 2. What percent solution is being used? Is this measured as percent weight or percent volume? How

much gelatin is added per amount of water? 3. How is this mixture being stirred? 4. Is the mixture left to sit in cold water? How long was this hydration time? Placed in refrigerator? For

how long? 5. Is the mixture heated in a hot water bath or in a double boiler? Is it covered? What is the heating

time? What is the temperature? Was gelatin stirred whi le heating? 6. What type and size molds were used? How long were the molds refrigerated for? What temperature? 7. After removal from molds, was the gelatin stored in refrigerator again? What temperature? For how

long? 8. How much time elapsed between removal of b locks from refrigerator and shooting? 9 . Is the gelatin reused? If so, after melting it down was the gelatin rechil led following the same proce

dure? 1 0. Was anyth ing added to the gelatin? What was added, and how much? For what purpose? In what

step of the procedure was it added? 1 1 . Where did you get the procedure or formula you were fol lowing in making the gelatin? 1 2. What actual tissue comparisons have you made to test your gelatin results? 1 3. What other test mediums, such as soap or water, have you used? Other results, variations, and/or additional comments:

The authors wish to thank Dr. Martin Fackler and Duncan MacPherson for all of their help and encouragement with the project and paper.

References:

I. Fackler, M.L., "Theodor Kocher and the scientific foundation of

wound ballistics." Surgery. 1 72 : 153- 160; February 1 99 1 .

2. Siemon, E., "Ballistic gelatin." Combat Handguns. 10(1) : 56-67;

February 1 989.

3. Fackler, M.L., and J.A. Malinowski, "The wound profile: A visual

method for quantifying gunshot wound components." The Journal of

Trauma. 25(6): 522-529; 1 985.

4. Fackler, M.L., Surinchak, M.A., Malinowski, J.A., and R.E. Bowen,

"Bullet fragmentation: A major cause of tissue disruption." The Journal of

Trauma. 24(1) : 35-39; 1984.

7. Kind & Knox, "General procedures for reconstituting gelatin." Kind

& Knox, Division of Knox Gelatine, Inc.; n.d.

8. Fackler, M.L. and B.P. Kneubuehl, "Applied wound ballistics:

What's new and what's true." Journal ofTrauma (China). 6(2) Supplement:

32-37; 1990.

9. Fackler, M.L., "The wound profile and the human body: Damage

pattern correlation." Wound Ballistics Review. 1 (4): 1 2- 1 9; 1 994.

I 0. Haag, L.C., "Ballistic gelatin: Controlling variances in preparation

and a suggested method for the calibration of gelatin blocks." AFTE Journal.

2 1 (3): 483-489; 1 989.

I I. Fackler, M.L., Personal communication. 5. Siemon, E., "Backyard ballistic gelatin part II." Combat Handguns.

1 0(2): 54-64; April 1 989.

6. Fackler, M.L. and J.A. Malinowski, "Ordnance gelatin for ballistic

studies: Detrimental effect of excess heat used in gelatin preparation."

Letterman Army Institute ofResearch: Institute Report#245. December

1 987; and The American Journal of Medicine and Pathology. 9(8): 2 1 8-

2 1 9; 1988.

12. Scheers, N.J., and S.R. Band, "Ammunition selection: Research and

measurement issues." FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin. 58(1 1) : 1 6-22; No

vember 1989.

13. Roberts, G.K., Personal communication

20 1995 Vol 2, No. 1



FALLING BULLETS :

TERMINAL VELOCITIES AND PENETRATION STUDIES Lucien C. Haag

Falling bullets from the reckless discharge of small

arms in populated areas becomes a matter of some

concern and discussion every New Year's Eve and

4th of July in the United States. Misconceptions

and misinformation abound on the subject of fall

ing bullets and their potential for harm.

Presently several ballistics programs for PCs allow for the calculation of the free-fall or terminal velocity of vertically-discharged small arms projectiles and shot from shotguns. Terminal ballistic testing of some representative bullets at such velocities can provide some insight into the wounding capabilities of these returning projectiles.

INTRODUCTION

In the January 1990 issue of the AFTE J ournal1 , the author described a ballistics program for personal computers that would calculate a number of properties of vertically-discharged shots. Such things as the maximum altitude reached, ascending flight time, time to return to earth, free-fall (terminal) velocity and energy for a base-first, point-first or tumbling return and the total round trip time for a particular shot. A two-part table was prepared showing the results of such calculations for some common pistol and rifle bullets. Four years and 8 holidays associated with revelrous gunfire have elapsed since and at least one case of an individual struck by a presumed falling bullet has come to the author' s attention. Additionally, the Baltec 1 computer program obtained from William C. Davis, Jr.2 has been revised since 1990 including the Vertical Ballistics section previously employed. Finally, the author

Vol 2, N o . 1 1995

has been involved in the terminal ballistic evaluation of low and reduced velocity bullets and spheres during this 4 year interval. All of these factors coupled with the first IWBA conference in March of 1994 has prompted a revisiting on this subject.

An interest in the properties and consequences of vertical firings of small arms is not new. Hatcher3 reviewed the work and computations of military ballisticians in the beginning of this century. In Chapter XX ("Bullets from the Sky") he also reported on various practical efforts to document and recover returning rifle bullets fired vertically from 30 (7.62mm) to 32 caliber (7.92mm) military arms. These reports included the .303 British Mark VII bullet which weighed 174 grains and had a muzzle velocity of 2440 f/s and had been calculated to rise to an altitude of 9000 ft. in 19 seconds then return in 36 seconds for a round trip time of 55 seconds. Actual firings by Major Hardcastle carried out in 1909 recorded round trip times of 48 to 5 1 seconds for this bullet. Hatcher goes on to report on vertical firings in the United States in 1 919-1 920 with the 150 gr. flat-based .30-' 06 bullet. At a muzzle velocity of 2700 f/s, calculations of the day gave a round trip time of 49.2 seconds and the terminal velocity of approximately 300 f/s for this bullet. Out of 500 rounds fired vertically from a specially built platform, four returning bullets were documented. From their impact impressions they were falling base-first, as expected, or at an angle with the base downward. One of these bullets struck a soft pine plank of the platform and left a 1116" deep impression of the base of the bullet in the wood.

Since the Mark VII .303 bullet and the 150 gr. .30-'06 bullet are still readily available, the Baltec 1 program was used to calculate the vertical ballistics of

21



these two rounds. The current program requires the following bullet data in order to perform such a calculation:

• Bullet weight in grains, • Bullet diameter, • Bullet length, • The length of the ogive (O.A.L. - bearing surface length), • The diameter of the meplat (if any), • The bullet' s muzzle velocity. • The ballistic coefficient (C) for the bullet. • The elevation of the firing location is also considered in the Baltec 1 program. (The thinner air at high altitude means that the projectile will reach a higher point but it also results in a higher free-fall terminal velocity. Using a value of C=0.340 for the 150 gr. .30-'06 bullet Table 1

or death as the consequence of being struck by one of these returning bullets. Past criteria for estimating injury production have been based on threshold velocities for skin perforation either in animals or human cadavers or on projectile kinetic energy values reported in various military publications. The one article that would seem to be the most relevant to common civilian small arms would be that of DiMaio, et.al.4 The authors found that a 1 13 grain 38 caliber round nose lead bullet penetrated skin on the leg of a fresh cadaver at approximately 166 f/s and perforated the same skin at an impact velocity of about 1 9 1 f/s. They also report that a 16.5 gr. 22 caliber lead air rifle pellet at 245 f/s successfully perforated human skin on the cadaver leg. They also quote Journee' s findings for human skin perforation by a 1 3 1 gr. 44 caliber lead ball at 230 f/s .

This work gives

and C=0.390 Falling Bullet Values us some insight into the matter

for the 174 gr. .303 bullet along with actual dimensional measurements taken from representative

1 50 gr. 30-'06 mi l itary projectile [MV = 2700 f/s] Max. Alt. = 9330' [9000'] Ascending time = 1 9.7 sec. [1 8 sec.] B .F. Return time = 37.5 sec. [3 1 sec.] Terminal Vel. = 294 f/s [300 f/s] Round Trip time = 57 sec. [49 sec.]

projectiles, sea level firings gave the following results (shown in Table 1 ) with the current Baltec 1 program: Note-the values shown in [ ] are the calculated values from Hatcher's Notebook.

The return times and terminal velocities for these bullets falling in a tumbling manner (rather than base -first as calculated above) lengthen and slow respectively as would be expected. The .30-'06 bullet, if tumbling, would take 58 seconds to return from its 9330' climb and would reach a calculated terminal velocity of 17 1 f/s during its return. The Baltec 1 program was used to calculate the vertical ballistics of some common projectiles. These are shown in Table 2.

An inspection of the Vertical Ballistics Table (Table 2) reveals that the bullets most likely to be discharged in such a manner return to earth with velocities on the order of 150 to 250 fps . The question of greatest interest becomes one of the potential for serious injury

1 7 4 gr.303 British Mk. V I I projectile [MV = 2440 f/s] Max. Alt. = 9823' [9000'] Ascending time = 20.1 sec. B.F. Return time = 37.6 sec. Terminal Vel. = 3 1 3 f/s Round Trip time = 58 sec. [55 sec.]

but many questions and unexplored parameters remain. Indeed, if one gives this subject a little thought it should quickly

become apparent that there can be no single solution to the question of minimum velocity (or kinetic energy, or momentum, or K.E. per unit area or MV per unit area) necessary to perforate skin for a multitude of reasons. One needn' t consult a surgeon or dermatologist to realize that the thickness of our skin varies depending on body location. For example, we have very thick skin on our upper backs and much thinner skin on the front of our necks. Structures beneath the skin may also play a role in penetration I perforation mechanics. Such underlying structures range from bone to cartilage, muscle and fat. The profile and design of the nose of the impacting bullet has received little or no consideration in the past. All of this is not to say that the mission is hopeless. It is more a matter of setting reasonable ranges of impact velocities necessary for a particular caliber, weight and design of bullet , e.g.- round nose, spitzer, hollow point, semi-wadcutter, hollow point,

22 1995 Vol 2, No. 1



etc. to perforate skin in various locales on the human constituted a third 'point' design when falling back to

body. earth base-first. Reduced loads using Bullseye pistol Several years ago this writer addressed the question powder were assembled with deep-seated bullets in 38

of projectile point design and profile on skin perf ora- Special cases to give velocities in the range of 150 f/s tion in a preliminary way. The three Speer brand 38 to about 250 f/s. This required propellant charges of

caliber 158 grain lead bullets listed in the middle of the 0.4 gr. to 0.8 gr. of Bullseye and a short barreled re-Vertical Ballistics Table served as useful models . They volver (a Charter Arms 2" revolver) with shallow were all of the same caliber, weight and composition riflings. A freshly-killed pig weighing approximately but represented two profiles (round nose and semi-- 50 pounds was suspended so as to present its abdomen wadcutter) and two point designs (solid and hollow to the source of gunfire. The Charter Arms test pistol

point) . All three of these bullets have flat bases which was mounted approximately 15 feet away in a Ransom

Table 2 VERTICAL BALLISTICS FOR SOME REPRESENTATIVE CARTRIDGES

CARTRI DGE BULLET MUZZLE BALLISTIC MAX. ALT. ASCENT TERMINAL DESCENT ROUND TRIP NAME WT. VEL. COEF. (ft.) TIME VELOCITY TIME TIME

(gr.) (fps) (sec.) (fps) (sec.) (sec.)

22 Short 29 1 095 .098 3014 1 0 1 68-BF* 21 .5 31 .5

LRN 1 34-TU* 25 35

22LR 40 1 255 . 1 32 3867 1 2.5 1 98-BF 23.5 36

LRN 1 42-TU 30 42

25ACP 50 760 .090 2288 9.4 1 91-BF 1 5.8 25

FMJ 1 46-TU 1 8.6 28

32ACP 71 905 .132 3342 1 1 .7 1 87-BF 21 .6 33

FMJ 1 58-TU 24.4 36

380ACP 95 FMJ 955 .079 2450 9.4 1 87-BF 1 6.9 26

9mmP(Win.) 1 1 5 JHP 1 225 . 1 42 4034 1 2.7 21 0--BF 23.4 36

9mmP 1 24 FMJ 1 1 1 0 . 1 72 4415 1 3.3 21 9-BF 24.6 38

38 Spi.(Rem.) 1 58 LRN 755 . 1 42 3004 1 1 .4 237-BF 1 7.4 29

38 Spi. (Speer) 1 58 LRN 950 . 1 70 4040 1 3.2 241-BF 22 35 [pdt.#4647] 1 82-TU 26 39

38 Spi. (Speer) 1 58 LSWC 950 .1 23 3296 1 1 .6 238-BF 1 9 30 [pdt.#4623] 1 67-TU 23 35 38 Spi .(Speer) 1 58 L- 950 . 1 21 3261 1 1 .5 238-BF 1 9 30

[pdt.#4627] SWC-HP 1 66-TU 23 35 41 Mag. 2 1 0 JSP 1 300 . 1 65 4537 1 3.6 247-BF 23.3 37

44 Mag. 240 JHP 1 1 80 . 1 72 451 9 1 3.6 249-BF 23.1 37

45 ACP 230 FMJ 850 . 1 39 3293 1 1 .9 228-BF 1 9.1 31

5.56mm 55 FMJ- 3240 .250 8024 1 7.0 244-BF 38 55 (223 Rem.) BT 141-TU 60 77 30 Carb. 1 1 0 FMJ 1 990 . 1 66 5 1 29 1 3.7 239-BF 26 40

7.62x39mm 1 23 FMJ 2400 .320 8556 1 9 264-BF 38 57 (Soviet) BT 1 58-TU 57 76

30-30Win. 1 50 JSP 2390 .217 6539 1 5.6 282-BF 28.7 44 30--'06 1 80 JSP 2700 .382 10,103 20.6 323-BF 37.5 58

#4 Buck 1 9.4 sph. 1 350 .026 •• 1 268 6.0 1 34 1 2 1 8 [1 7.8-1 8 act.]

.050 1 1 22 6.0 1 34 1 1 1 7

00 Buck 53.7 sph. 1 350 .035** 1 605 7.0 1 57 1 3.5 20.5 [21 sec. act.] .070 1 451 6.7 1 58 1 3.4 20.1

*BF = Base First Return TU = Tumbling Return ** Subsonic value for C for a lead sphere calculated by L. Haag

Vol 2 , N o . 1 1995 23



Table 3

38 CALIBER (.3581 1) 1 58 GRAIN LEAD BULLETS FIRED INTO FRESH KILLED PIG

ROUND NOSE

[Speer Pdt. #4647]

1 61 f/s-bullet

rebounded, yawed

1 72 fls-peliorated

skin & abdominal wall

SEMI-WADCUTTER (SWC) SWC-HOLLOW POINT

[Speer Pdt. #4623] [Speer Pdt. #4627]

STRIKES INTO ABDOMEN OF TEST ANIMAL 1 64 f/s-bullet rebounded

1 87 fls-peliorated skin

1 68 tis-bullet peliorated

skin and abdominal wall

209 fls-peliorated skin

and abdominal wall

FLAT BASE FWD

(RN bul let reversed)

1 58 tis-bullet rebounded

1 7 4 tis-bullet rebounded

on impact

229 fls-peliorated skin

and abdominal wall

STRIKES INTO SIDE OF TEST ANIMAL 1 58 tis-bullet

rebounded

1 7 4 fls-peliorated

(bullet just under skin)


1 93 tis-rebounded

Rest with a pair of matched ballistic chronographs positioned to measure the impact velocity of each shot. A second series of shots with the 3 Speer brand bullets was fired into the side of this same pig in an area of the upper back where the skin was much thicker. The body of the pig was still warm and the onset of rigor had not begun by the completion of the tests. The results of these shots are summarized above in Table 3 .

These same bullets were also fired at comparable velocities into blocks of calibrated 10% ballistic gelatin. The same chronographs were used to measure impact velocity. The results of these firings are given in Table 4.

Additional blocks of 10% ballistic gelatin were equipped with a facing panel of 0.060 inch thick rubber cut from an inner tube to act as a skin simulant. The same series of Speer 38 caliber lead bullets were once again fired into these modified gelatin blocks with the results as shown in Table 5 .

Lucien C. Haag is a Criminalist & Firearms Exam

iner and President of Forensic Science Services, Inc.

24

1 72 tis-bul let stuck in

skin (ca. 1 12 in the skin)

1 71 tis-rebounded


21 1 tis-rebounded

1995

OBSERVATIONS AND SUMMARY:

There are many interesting observations to be made from the ballistic computations and subsequent test firings reported in this paper. The vertical ballistics program written by William C. Davis, Jr. gave a terminal velocity for the base-first return of the classic 30-'06 military bullet which was in very good agreement with the early work reported in the literature for this round (V1 = 294 f/s vs. 300 f/s respectively). The round trip times for #4 and 00 buckshot measured by this writer were also in good agreement with the Baltec I- calculated values (see bottom of the Vertical Ballistics Table on page 3).

This ballistics program not only provides reasonable estimates for a bullet 's free-fall or terminal velocity with considerations for terrain elevation (air density) and bullet behavior during the return trip but also provides insight into the maximum altitude reached by small arms projectiles. This could be important in evaluating whether overflying aircraft are within or beyond the reach of vertically-fired shots.

The terminal velocities given by this program for common small arms bullets are in the area where skin penetration and even perforation is possible to likely, i.e.- return velocities on the order of 150 to 250 f/s. Fatal wounds from falling bullets of the type presented

Vol 2, No. 1



PEN ETRATION INTO BARE BALLISTIC GELATIN [SPEER 38 CALIBER 1 58 GR. LEAD BULLETS]

Table 4

ROUND NOSE

1 77 fls- 4.6" with

yaw at terminus

1 9 1 fls- 6.9" , nose

forward

SEMI-WADCUTTER

1 68 tis- 5 .25", nose forward,

curved track at terminus

202 fls- 6.0" , bul let

reversed itself along track

SEM I-WADCUTTER HOLLOW POINT

1 60 fls- 5.6" nose forward, straight track

1 84 fls- 6 .75" , nose fwd . ,

bul let yawed a t terminus

SHOTS INTO BALLISTIC GELATIN COVERED WITH A SKIN SIMULANT* [SPEER 38 CALIBER 1 58 GR. LEAD BULLETS]

ROUND NOSE

1 88 tis- 2 . 7" of

penetration, bul let sideways at terminus

SEMI-WADCUTTER

1 85 fls-2.2" of penetration

21 8 fls- 3.2" penetration, 237 fls- 4.6" of penetration, bul let reversed itself bul let reversed itself

203 fls- 5.6" penetration, bul let reversed ends near

terminus with curved path

SEMI-WADCUTTER HOLLOW POINT

1 57 tis-bul let rebounded

1 82 fls- 1 .9" penetration

200 fls- 2.7" penetration,

nose forward, path curved ca. 1 0° off true toward end

FLAT BASE FORWARD

1 78 tis- 3.5", s l ightly curved

track

Table 5

FLAT BASE FORWARD

1 55 tis-bul let rebounded

1 73 f/s-bul let rebounded

223 fls- 2.8" of penetration,

curved path toward terminus

*A panel of 0.060 inch thick rubber inner tube material secured across the i mpact side of the ball istic gelatin .

in the table 4 would appear quite unlikely however. Although parameters associated with estimating or

predicting threshold velocities for human skin perforation by small arms projectiles are numerous, the results of test firings into an animal model for a 38 caliber lead round nose bullet gave very similar results to those of DiMaio: Speer 158 gr. LRN perforation threshold velocity ca. 170 f/s for both abdomen and upper back of a freshly-killed pig by Haag vs. 19 1 f/s for human skin

Vol 2 , No. 1 1995

(leg) perforation by a 1 13 gr. LRN bullet used in DiMaio' s study. It should be noted that the 38 caliber bullet used in DiMaio' s study was a lighter bullet and would consequently require a higher impact velocity than a heavier bullet (keeping all other parameters constant) to effect perforation.

The profile and design of a projectile' s point (or impacting surface) have a decided effect on a bullet 's ability to achieve skin penetration or perforation. This

25



should not come as a surprise since our common experience tells us that its much easier to drive a sharp nail into a board than a blunt one. Nonetheless, these parameters seem not to have been addressed in past studies of skin perforation by projectiles. An inspection of the upper table on page 5 reveals that the semi-wadcutter (with a flat, solid point of 0.22 inches diameter) rebounded from the abdominal skin of the pig with an impact velocity of 164 f/s. The hollow point semi-wadcutter (with a comparable profile but a 0. 14" hollow point) at 1 68 f/s perforated the skin and abdominal wall in the same area on the same animal. Reversing these bullets to present the .358 diameter flat base to the skin of the test animal raised the velocity requirements to about 220 f/s to petforate the same skin. The round nose design appears to have a slight edge over the hollow pointed semi-wadcutter in achieving penetration (see the lower table on page 5). The round nose bullet perforated the skin on the side of the test animal at an impact velocity of 174 f/s whereas the SWCHP bullet at 1 72 f/s stuck in the same skin.

None of the bullets recovered from the test shots into the freshly-killed pig were flattened or deformed.

Very similar behavior was noted with the layer of tough but pliable rubber mounted on ballistic gelatin. An impact velocity of about 1 80 f/s was needed for the round nose, the semi-wadcutter and the hollow pointed semi-wadcutter to achieve perforation. An impact velocity of about 220 f/s was required for a reversed bullet to effect perforation. It was also noted that the round nose bullet parted the rubber which then closed in behind the bullet. The hollow point SWC bullet 'plugged' the rubber as did bullets fired base-first. This behavior is what one might expect and corresponds to some extent with what one witnesses on the pistol range with such bullets perforating paper and cardboard targets. The plugs of rubber cut out by the blunt-faced and hollow-pointed bullets could be seen in the 'wound' track in the gelatin blocks.

Finally, the velocity necessary to just perforate something such as skin or rubber is not lost as a consequence of achieving such perforation. In other words if a particular bullet requires 200 f/s to perforate human skin over muscle and it strikes the skin in such an area with an impact velocity of 800 f/s, it is incorrect to

26 1995

conclude that the bullet' s remaining velocity is now 600 f/s. This, along with other aspects of projectile penetration and perforation, will be the subject of a future paper. One can gain some insight into this phenomenon by examining the two tables on page 6. Two of the round nosed bullets fired directly into bare gelatin with impact velocities of 19 1 and 202 f/s penetrated 6.0 to 6.9" of gelatin. The lower table reveals that this same bullet perforating the 0.060" thick rubber 'skin' with an impact velocity of 203 f/s went on to penetrate 5.6 inches of ballistic gelatin. Since the threshold velocity of perforation of this rubber skin is about 1 80 f/s, it should be evident that subtracting 1 80 f/s from 203 f/s leaving 23 f/s would hardly account for the subsequent 5 .6 inches of gelatin penetration achieved by the 203 f/s RN bullet. The same conclusion can be reached by studying the results for the shots with the reversed bullets. At an impact velocity of 1 78 f/s a reversed bullet penetrated 3.5 inches of bare gelatin. In the lower table we see that at 173 f/s this bullet is still rebounding off the rubber 'skin' on the gelatin block but at 223 f/s the backwards bullet punches through the rubber and penetrates 2.8 inches of gelatin (which represents 80% of the previous 3 .5" penetration value). Even if one estimates the threshold velocity for penetration of this substrate by this bullet to be as low as 1 80 f/s (it is more likely around 200 to 2 10 f/s) , subtracting 180 f/s from 223 f/s would leave 43 f/s to produce the 2.8 inches of gel penetration realized by the 223 f/s impact. Once the particular threshold velocity for perforation is reached and exceeded, only a small percentage of the impact velocity is given up in the penetration I perforation process.

References:

1 Haag, L.C., "Vertical Ballistics", AFTE Jour., 22: l pp.27-3 1 2Williarn C. Davis, Jr., TIOGA ENGINEERING, P.O. Box 9 1 3, 1 3

Cone St., Wellsboro, PA 1 6901

3 Hatcher, Julian S., Hatcher's Notebook, 3rd Ed., 2nd Printing, The Stackpole Co., Harrisburg, PA ( 1 966) pp. 5 10-5 17

4DiMaio, V .J.M., Copeland, A.R., Besant-Matthews, P.E., Fletcher,

L.A. and A. Jones, "Minimal Velocities Necessary for Perforation of Skin by

Air Gun Pellets and Bullets", Jour, of For. Sci., 27:4 (Oct. 1 982) pp.

894-898.

Vol 2, No. 1

· ! •



The JFK Assassination:

THE FRANGIBLE OR PLASTIC BULLET THEORY DISPROVED John K. Lattimer, M.D., Sc.D, Angus Laidlaw, Val Forget!, Eric Haubner, R. T.

An experimental study to examine the speculative

theory that a disintegrating projectile was used in

the JFK assassination. The authors conducted tests

with human skulls and compared those results

with the radiographic and other data from JFK's

medical records to conclude that no such projectile

was involved.

The proposer admitted that there was very little evidence for either of these scenarios and that this evidence would not stand up in a court of law. 2

FRANGIBLE BULLETS

Frangible bullets, which break up on impact, are no

One of the loudest critics of the Warren Commission Report has suggested that in addition

longer made, but specimens do still exist. By far the most common examples are .22 cali

to Oswald' s bullets from the rear and above, perhaps President Kennedy was also hit from the front with frangible or plastic bullets, which then disappeared, leaving no trace. It was proposed that a second shooter, on the grassy knoll, 50 feet to the right-front of the Presidential automobile, precisely coordinated his frangible bullet shot so that it struck the President in the right temple area almost simultaneously with Oswald' s bullets from behind and above. 1

Two scenarios were proposed. #1 - The frangible bullet hit

President Kennedy in the temple immediately before his head exploded from the impact of Oswald's head bullet from the rear (as shown in frame 3 1 3 of the Zapruder film).

#2 - The second scenario was that the disappearing bullet from the grassy knoll struck the President in the right temple area immediately after his head had exploded.

Vol 2 , No. 1

FIG. 1 FRANGIBLE GALLERY ROUND

This .22 short bullet is made of

flakes and particles of lead held

in a strong adhesive. It will pen

etrate one side of an adult hu-

man skull, but not both sides.

Lead particles are left in the

head. See Figs. 2 and 3.

1995

ber rimfire cartridges known as .22 "short" cartridges. They contain 2 grains of powder and have a muzzle velocity of 350 feet per second. They were known as "gallery" ammunition because they were used primarily in shooting galleries. Their chief attribute was that the bullet, being made of flakes of lead or iron, bound together with a strong adhesive, into the shape of a bullet, would break up when they struck the steel target of a shooting gallery. They would not bounce or glance off, to inju

Documents

WOUND BALLISTICS REVIEW - Thinline Weaponsthinlineweapons.com/IWBA/1995-Vol2No1.pdf · WOUND BALLISTICS REVIEW Association News JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL WOUND BALLISTICS ASSOCIATION